Who's On?

	Membership:
	Latest: Lauren Beeker
	Past 24 Hours: 0
	Prev. 24 Hours: 0
	Overall: 5222

	People Online:
	Visitors: 98
	Members: 0
	Total: 98

Name	Points
Greg Moeller	4184
David Williams	3349
Kat V	2984
Woozy	1973
Jimmy Chiu	1883
Kwane McNeal	1437
Ragu Raghavan	1377
Roger French	1315
mark.cook	1244
Chris Martin	825

LSF Security & inbasket Display Exec problems

3 Replies

0 Subscribed to this topic

18 Subscribed to this forum

Sort:

Author

Messages

Anthony Benitez

New Member

Posts: 3

4/14/2010 7:24 PM

We are in the final preparations for migrating from LAUA security to LSF security and have run into the following problem/error for viewing work unit details in an approver inbasket ... "Lawson security users not supported in dme.exe". The error is related to the scripting in the Display Exec "jobreq.htm" file.

Has anyone run into this problem and resolved successfully? Lawson's article 5103245 details the issue but doesn't offer a resolution. Any assistance is appreciated! Thanks.

John Henley

Posts: 3365

New Poster

Engaged Reader

Avid Reader

4/15/2010 12:31 AM

I ran into this recently as well. It looks like the code in the htminbasket is broken (I'm looking at it on 9.0.0.4) with respect to figuring out whether to use dme (which works only for LAUA users) vs. Data servlet (which works for both LAUA and LS users). I will be checking it on later versions to see if it is fixed and if not, the workaround is either to wait for a fix, fix it yourself, or use the Portal inbasket (which requires Design Studio). =

Anthony Benitez

New Member

Posts: 3

4/15/2010 7:56 PM

Thanks, John. Due to time constraints, we have engaged a consultant for fixing the jobreq.htm scripting and have confirmed the data servlet requirement. Lawson GSC is currently stating they do not support the delivered .htm file. :-(

John Henley

Posts: 3365

New Poster

Engaged Reader

Avid Reader

4/19/2010 5:49 PM

I had a little laugh today. I was looking at this on 9.0.0.8, and it works just fine. Digging in, I found that the delivered "fix" was to just comment out the logic that figures out what version of IOS is running, and hard-code 9.0!